Jethmalani quits as Kejriwal's counsel, seeks Rs 2 crore fee

TNN
July 26, 2017

New Delhi, Jul 26: Ram Jethmalani has quit as chief minister Arvind Kejriwal's counsel in the civil and criminal defamation cases filed by Union finance minister Arun Jaitley against the CM.jethmalani

Following Kejriwal's denial of having instructed the lawyer to use derogatory language against Jaitley during court proceedings on May 17, the lawyer has written a letter to the CM, accusing him of using even more offensive language against Jaitley during private discussions on the case.

Jethmalani has asked Kejriwal to settle his legal fees amounting to more than Rs 2 cro5re. The lawyer used an offensive word, amounting to accusing Jaitley of being a criminal, during proceedings of the Rs 10-crore defamation case against Kejriwal and five other AAP leaders.

Jaitley asked Jethmalani if the word was spoken on his client's instruction. The lawyer replied in the affirmative and Jaitley filed another Rs 10-crore defamation suit against the CM.

Stung by the fresh defamation suit, Kejriwal filed an affidavit in Delhi high court and wrote a letter to Jethmalani saying he had not given any instructions for use of the derogatory word.

In his affidavit, Kejriwal said it was " inconceivable that he would even think of instructing the senior counsel to use such objectionable words". "Neither the defendant (Kejriwal) nor the counsel (Anupam Srivastava) briefing the senior counsel (Jethmalani) gave instructions to the senior counsel to use the objectionable words on May 17, 2017," Kejriwal said in the affidavit.

In response, after conveying his decision to quit as the CM's advocate, Jethmalani also told the CM to settle his legal fee, which, by a conservative estimate, would be over Rs 2 crore. The Delhi government had, this February, cleared a payment of Rs 3.5 crore to Jethmalani, which included Rs 1 crore as retainer and Rs 22 lakh as fee for each appearance in court.

However, the chief minister's office refused to comment on the matter, saying they "have no intimation on Jethmalani withdrawing from the case so far".

Jethmalani said, "Kejriwal has written a letter to me. I have replied to that. I am not going to divulge the details of either of the letters. You ask Kejriwal to make public both the letters. I have promised him not to make it public."

Sources said, in his letter, Jethmalani reminded Kejriwal about many conferences they had at the lawyer's residence and during which he had informed the CM about how PM Narendra Modi, impressed by his relentless fight against black money, had asked him to join BJP in 2010.

The letter also said the CM had shared the lawyer's anguish about BJP doing nothing to keep its election-eve promise to get back black money and deposit Rs 15 lakh in every Indian's bank account and how Jethmalani held Modi and Jaitley responsible for this.

During such conversations, Jethmalani alleged in his letter, Kejriwal had used even more objectionable words against Jaitley. The alleged use of derogatory words by Kejriwal during the conference appeared to have made Jethmalani repeat them during the May 17 proceedings before the HC registrar in the first defamation suit.

Jaitley had filed an application for expediting the recording of evidence in an orderly and fair manner in the first Rs 10-crore defamation suit against Kejriwal and the five AAP leaders for making allegations of corruption against him by them.

Comments

Rajarama Shetty
 - 
Thursday, 27 Jul 2017

Mr. Ramanath Rai is able & experienced .six time MLA..!! MOST SENIOR .dedicated CONGRESS MAN for more than 40 years?

Are there better candidates than him?

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
March 1,2020

Kolkata, Mar 1: The Calcutta High Court has ruled that it is not mandatory for foreigners to produce a valid passport and its particulars for processing of application for grant of Indian citizenship if he is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non-availability of the document.

Justice Sabysachi Bhattacharya passed the order while disposing off a petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application before the authority "as contemplated in Rule 11 of the Citizenship Rules 2009, upon furnishing explanation as to the non-availability of the passport".

Bismillah Khan had filed the petition saying he was being denied the citizenship of India because of his inability to file an application under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, apparently due to the mandatory requirement of furnishing a copy of the passport for such application.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that Khan was a Pakhtoon citizen and due to political turmoil in the said state, which subsequently merged partially into Afghanistan and partially into Pakistan, he, as a five-year old, had to migrate to India with his father in 1973.

Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not have any opportunity of having a valid passport, since they were refugees under distress, the counsel said.

The petitioner had previously approached a coordinate Bench of the court, wherein a single judge, passed an order on July 25, 2018, directing him to comply with the formalities required, as communicated by the secretary to the Government of India to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal (Home), vide a letter dated December 7, 2017.

The court had then also given liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh before the appropriate authority under Section 5(1)(c) of the 1955 Act, having complied with all the formalities.

The petitioner then moved Bhattacharya's court submitting that a complete application as directed by the Coordinate Bench cannot be possibly filed by his client due to the mandatory requirement of uploading a copy of his passport, which the petitioner does not have due to reasons beyond his control.

The counsel said Khan is married to an Indian citizen, has a daughter and living in India for close to half a century.

The counsel for the union of India submitted that in view of no application having been filed by the petitioner, there is no scope of granting such proposed application at the present juncture for the Union.

The counsel argued that it is mandatory to file an application in Form III for the application of the petitioner under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act to be considered at all.

In view of the petitioner not complying with the mandatory requirement of submitting a copy of his passport, the state government cannot, under the law, forward such application to the union government.

After hearing all sides, Justice Bhattacharya said although the rule "contemplates that an application shall not be entertained unless the application is made in Form III, such provision ipso facto does not make the availability of a passport a mandatory requirement".

"..the Form given with the Rules or the Rules themselves cannot override the provision of the statute itself, under which the said Rules are framed, which does not stipulate such a mandate on the applicants for citizenship under Section 5 (1)(c) of the 1955 Act mandatorily to carry a passport".

The court said although such provision is included in the Form, which has to be complied with by the applicant, "it is nowhere indicated in such Form that all the relevant particulars, including the particulars regarding passport of the petitioner have to be furnished mandatorily, along with a copy of a valid foreign passport, even in the event the petitioner, for valid reasons, is not in a position to produce such passport".

Justice Bhattacharya ruled that under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the provision of producing a passport and its particulars is mandatory in nature and there has to be a relaxation in such requirement "in case the petitioner is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non- availability of such passport".

"Unless such a leeway is given to the applicants, genuine persons who otherwise have all the formal documents indicating that they have been residing in India for a long time and have married a resident of India would also be unable to apply for Indian Citizenship despite having lived their entire lives and contributed to the economy and diverse culture of this country."

He said such a scenario would be contradictory to the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

"In such view of the matter, the requirement of having a passport has to be read as optional in Form III of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 and the authorities are deemed to have the power to relax such 6 requirement in the event the applicant satisfied the authorities for genuine reasons why the applicant is not in a position to produce such passport," the February 24 order said.

The court ruled that despite the provision of making applications online, a provision has to be made for persons who do not have all the particulars of their passport, which is read as optional, to file applications manually, which are to be treated as valid applications under Rule 5 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009.

The court also ordered that alternatively the necessary software be amended so that the online applications can be presented with or without passports, in the latter case furnishing detailed reasons as to non-furnishing of passports.

"Sanctioning of such forms, however, will be conditional upon the satisfaction of the relevant authorities about the reasons for the applicant not being able to produce her/his passport," the order said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
April 24,2020

Apr 24: Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on Friday sought Prime Minister Narendra Modi's intervention in bringing bodies of Keralites who died in the Gulf countries due to non-COVID-19 reasons to the state without any delay for performing last rites in their home towns.

In a letter, he wanted Modi to direct Indian embassies to issue necessary clearances without seeking individual approvals from the Ministry of Home Affairs and avoid any delay so that the remains reach Kerala early. It has been learnt that a 'clearance certificate' from the Indian embassies concerned was required to process the application for bringing home the bodies.

The embassies are insisting on production of no-objection certificate from the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, he said in the letter, a copy of which was released to the media here on Friday. The Centre had already agreed that in case the deaths are not COVID related, such certificates are not necessary.

The bodies are now being brought in the cargo planes as passenger flights are not being operated due to the lockdown. Chief Minister said he had received several grievances from the NRKs in Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries on the delay in bringing home the bodies of those who died there. "They are already under tremendous stress and anxiety due to the lockdown imposed in those countries and the consequent stoppage of international flights", Vijayan said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
June 15,2020

Palghar, Jun 15: A 22-year-old man who got married three days ago tested positive for novel coronavirus on Monday leading to the bride and 63 others who attended the function being quarantined in Palghar district in Maharashtra, an official said.

Jawhar Tehsildar Santosh Shinde said the man is a laboratory assistant.

"He got tested before marriage and the report had returned negative. However, his samples tested positive after marriage. The bride and 63 others who attended the ceremony have been quarantined," he said.

Palghar currently has 1,911 COVID-19 cases and 61 people have died of the infection so far.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.